July 20, 2009
Is Red Toryism the Threat the Left Should be Focused On?
I”m back from China. I may blog about my experiences in time, but there was so much to take in that I need to let it all settle. In the meantime I’ve been catching up on the recent UK blog activity, and hence was inspired to give you this:
Sunny Hundal and others at Liberal Conspiracy have recently been discussing Red Toryism, the embryonic brand of conservativism expounded most notably by Phillip Blond. Sunny and co have raised particular concerns that Red Toryism could supplant the left indefinitely. This is (roughly) because it combines a small-c conservative preference for tradition and gradual organic change with a suspicion of corrosive free market economics and the attendant breakdown of social relations. In other words, areas long assumed to be the preserve of the left could be appropriated by Red Tory rejection of the Thatcher settlement. Red Toryism, it is feared, could steal the best leftist clothes and appeal to everyone from the centre to the reasonable-right, thus crowding the liberal left out from power indefinitely.
But Red Toryism remains embryonic. Blond is still its only established (and respected) mouthpiece, and as yet it is a set of interesting ideas rather than a solid ideology. As fascinating as I find Red Toryism, I can’t help wondering if a more serious threat to the left comes from the decidedly un-reasonable right: Libertarianism.
We bloggers like to talk ourselves up. Some claim that the “dead tree press” has had its day, and point to the Damian McBride affair as proof that blogs are the future. But if this is true, then the left should be worried.
As far as I am aware there are no thoroughgoing Red Tory blogs. The same cannot be said of Libertarianism. Sites like Old Holborn, Devil’s Kitchen and Mr Eugenides attract a massive readership between them (apparently being the 9th, 15th and 17th most-read blogs respectively), and all three appearing in the PoliticsHome.com blog live-feed. Although Guido Fawkes is probably best described as a political arsonist (h/t to Tim Ireland for the label), the visceral attacks on the state and the political class by Paul Staines fit closer to the ‘tear-down-the-state’ attitude of Libertarianism than any other grouping. And that’s not even factoring in Libertarian tendencies to be found on ConservativeHome. There’s a lot of Libertarian thinking and writing going on out there.
As well as having an established and large on-line readership, the Libertarian community is incredibly pro-active. Write a blog about Libertarianism – or even just about tax or government spending generally – and chances are you’ll get Libertarians on the comments thread within hours. Some of these will make efforts to engage in rational and mature debate (a chap called Dan regularly makes highly sophisticated critiques on my blog, and often remains more polite and courteous than I manage to be). But many will not. Richard Murphy recently attracted Libertarian wrath, and had delete half of the comments he received due to their vicious nature. After writing about progressive taxation a few months back, one prominent Libertarian blog described me as a “maggot” engaging in the politics of selfishness. (It’s lucky for the blogger in question that I’m not the sue-ing sort, because if I was I’d be laughing all the way to the bank).
Part of the reason Libertarians are so pro-active seems to be because so many of them are unbelievably angry. It pours out of their blogs and comments; a visceral loathing of the state, a righteous indignation at the present composition of the world which animates them to great levels of energy. For those of us on the left, this can appear confusing and strange. After all, the world of Libertopia would – by our estimates – be a nightmare realm of poverty, inequality and destitution for all but the minority elites who competed with greatest fortune in the game of dog-eat-dog.
For its worth recalling a straightforward consequence of some basic Libertarian commitments. Libertarians see tax as unjustified coercion by the state. Accordingly, they would allow only taxation which was required to provide a “minimal” state whose role would be to provide defence, police, courts and the enforcement of contracts. No tax above that would be levied. This means there would be no provision of healthcare by the state, for that would require ‘unjustified’ and ‘coercive’ taxation faciltating more than a mere minimal state. Healthcare in Libertopia would either be provided by private companies, or by charitable organisations. A person too poor to go private and unlucky enough not to receive charity would be left on the roadside to die. This is because Libertarians think it is worse for the state to “coercively” tax people in order to provide a health service than to allow the poor to die on the side of the road. Hence they plug for the latter over the former.
This is not, it must be noted, an attempt to smear libertarians with emotively shocking examples: it’s a logical outcome of their political beliefs, which honest Libertarians will, and do, accept. If you don’t believe me, Peter Hawkins (a former Libertarian, no less) has argued the case very well here.
For those on the left, such views appear so outlandishly whacky, so extreme, that two reactions are probably prevalent. Firstly, abject horror that anybody could hold such views (a fairly natural response to something so antithetical to one’s politico-ethical commitments).
Secondly – and more importantly – a certainty that such outlandish and extreme views could never gain traction outside of the Libertarian community. After all – we think to ourselves – surely it would be electoral suicide for a party to go to the country advocating the abolition of the NHS (as well as state schools, public roads, street lights and everything else provided by government money)?
The problem, of course, is that whilst the advocacy of such extreme policies would indeed be electoral suicide, Libertarians are too clever to be suicidal. Hence Andrew Withers of the UK Libertarian Party has commented that:
One of the greatest problems that a Libertarian has is trying to convey the message that Libertarians would not close all of the hospitals in the country, and the dead, dying and ill would be lying in hedgerows and/or the work house.
(Of course, as Peter Hawkins shows [follow link above] honest Libertarians should bite the bullet and admit that they think it is better for poor people to die in the streets than for a state to levy coercive taxation to pay for their healthcare. But this raises a different issue about electoral tactics vs. intellectual purity which I’ll leave alone here).
Rather than making politically suicidal attacks on the NHS or free education, Libertarians are focusing their energy in more achievable areas, and tax is top of the list. Libertarians typically advocate a flat rate tax, i.e. everybody paying the same rate, regardless of whether they are a pauper or a millionaire. (In other words, advocating the Poll Tax as the only justified tax error deleted, h/t to Anton for pointing this out). Typically, Libertarians are also viciously opposed to inheritance tax (which is somewhat peculiar, given that you’d have thought their instincts for free-market competition would lead them to agree with Winston Churchill’s remark that estate tax is “a certain corrective against the development of a race of idle rich ”).
Libertarians focus on these areas, however, because they correctly view them as achievable short-to-medium term goals which, if achieved, will pave the way for more drastic state-smashing policies later on.
And it seems to be working. George Osborne’s rather esoteric comments here can certainly be read as laying the groundwork for advocating a flat tax regime. The Tories are still pledging to raise inheritance tax thresholds to £1 million, and they have a precedent for success after the Bush administration in its first term (and with Libertarian backing) took considerable steps to abolish American estate taxes on the wealthiest 2%.
Whilst Obama may be in the White House, it’s Cameron’s Tories who are heading for Downing Street – and its Libertarian arguments that are filtering through into Tory thinking about tax (and I would add, spending cuts and slashing the state more generally). So far I don’t see any Red Tory ideas being adopted by the Cameronites
Red Toryism may be emotively less abhorrent to leftists than Libertarianism, and we may feel threatened by it’s clothes-stealing potential. But Red Toryism is still in early development: Blond’s is a considerable intellect, but he lacks a wide-ranging network of support reproducing and expanding his ideas, feeding them into the mainstream right. Red Toryism may have gotten a lot of attention, but it’s still largely a one-man-band in its early stages.
Libertarianism, by contrast, is a permanent, massive and well-established fixture of the on-line political debate which is increasingly shaping real-world politics. Libertarian blogs are well-read, and Libertarian advocates are extremely widespread throughout the ‘blogosphere’. Their ideas appear to be permeating the rhetoric of an inbound party of Government.
Red Toryism may seem threatening because it could arrogate much of what the left has traditionally – and lazily – assumed to be its preserve. But Libertarianism’s growth and virility is what should really concern us. For Libertopia – or anything approaching it – is fundamentally and violently antagonistic to all that liberal leftists believe in. Libertarianism is an ideology which seeks to revolutionise society by stripping away the state almost entirely – and in the process stripping away all that the left thinks the state can and should achieve in the name of fairness, equality and social solidarity.
In terms of established political strength, impact on the political discourse, and antagonism towards everything the liberal left holds dear, it’s not Red Toryism we should be worrying about.
antonhowes said,
July 20, 2009 at 8:56 pm
I think some extremist libertarians are giving libertarianism a bad name.
Just like many things, it can be taken in moderation.
I think you are slightly conflating it with anarchism though: “by stripping away the state almost entirely”, when in actual fact it thinks the state should enforce property rights, as well as stopping people from harming each other (which is why they tolerate some tax).
You then get moderates like me who start to veer to the left by likingwelfare, free and universal healthcare, free and universal education, etc. as other essentials to ensure maximum freedom as they are needed so that we can continue living to exercise that freedom!
Many libertarians also advocate a citizen’s income, etc.
Then again, although I’ve been described as libertarian, this is only because I am socially and economically liberal – probably best defined as your typical Economist reader, and certainly not an extremist.
And no wait! The Poll tax is not a flat tax! I know you’re in favour of progressive taxation (and I’m pretty neutral on the issue) but a poll tax is a set amount, and is certainly regressive, whereas a flat tax is a set percentage and is neither regressive nor progressive.
Aren’t Churchill’s comments there about LVT or “the estate tax” rather than IHT?
Paul said,
July 20, 2009 at 9:39 pm
“I think some extremist libertarians are giving libertarianism a bad name.”
I think that libertarians are, by definition, extremists.
“Just like many things, it can be taken in moderation.”
How?? How can there be a moderate way of abolishing state education, state hospitals, state infrastructure provision, street lighting and all the rest that tax money makes possible? If you’re a libertarian, you are opposed to taxation which provides for more than defence, police and law courts. This is an extreme, radical position seeking to fundamentally re-order society. How can there be a moderate version of libertarianism (without that “moderation” resulting in the ideology simply becoming Thacherite conservatism?)
“I think you are slightly conflating it with anarchism though: “by stripping away the state almost entirely”, when in actual fact it thinks the state should enforce property rights, as well as stopping people from harming each other (which is why they tolerate some tax).”
Well anarchism and libertarianism are very similar in a lot of ways. As the old joke goes, the only difference between them is that under the former the poor are allowed to shoot back.
“You then get moderates like me who start to veer to the left by likingwelfare, free and universal healthcare, free and universal education, etc. as other essentials to ensure maximum freedom as they are needed so that we can continue living to exercise that freedom!”
If you think these things, and you think these things are improtant enough to be provided with tax revenue, then you are NOT a libertarian. You may be a conservative-leaning Liberal, or a Red Tory. But there’s just no way you are a libertarian if you think universal healthcare and free education should be provided by the state. Sorry, it’s just not compatible. You’re not a “moderate” libertarian, you are simply not a libertarian but something else on the political landscape.
“Then again, although I’ve been described as libertarian, this is only because I am socially and economically liberal – probably best defined as your typical Economist reader, and certainly not an extremist.”
Quite. Whoever described you as a Libertarian probably didn’t understand what that term typically refers to in the modern political discourse. You’re a market liberal – which is different from a Libertarian (by a LONG way)
“And no wait! The Poll tax is not a flat tax! I know you’re in favour of progressive taxation (and I’m pretty neutral on the issue) but a poll tax is a set amount, and is certainly regressive, whereas a flat tax is a set percentage and is neither regressive nor progressive.”
Whoops, good point. Thanks for noting that.
“Aren’t Churchill’s comments there about LVT or “the estate tax” rather than IHT?”
Estate tax, inheritance tax, same difference ultimately. I don’t think he was talking about Land Value Tax, but even if he was the underlying point is still the same: allow individuals to inherit large amounts of wealth/income/land and they have an icnentive to be bone idle and unproductive.
Peter said,
July 21, 2009 at 12:00 am
Anton,
““You then get moderates like me who start to veer to the left by likingwelfare, free and universal healthcare, free and universal education, etc. as other essentials to ensure maximum freedom as they are needed so that we can continue living to exercise that freedom!””
- Interestingly, if we care about *maximising* freedom, we might want to be egalitarians and have a highly progressive tax system. For, poverty limits freedom, as G.A. Cohen convincingly argues in this paper:
http://www.utdt.edu/Upload/_115634753114776100.pdf
So, if we care about the *freedom* of the poor, we ought to redistribute wealth.
(though Dan who Paul mentions has some fairly sophisticated replies to Cohen. Essentially though, he’s committed to a moralised conception of freedom [maybe that's right, but I disagree with it]).
Paul,
Good post. In terms of libertarian thinking infiltrating the mainstream, you’ve also got right-wing poster boy Dan Hannan MEP, who went on the offensive against the NHS on Fox:
Dan said,
July 21, 2009 at 11:18 am
If you think these things, and you think these things are improtant enough to be provided with tax revenue, then you are NOT a libertarian.
I’ll reply more fully later on, but I think this is almost certainly wrong provided you’re not overzealous in excluding self-identifying libertarians from the label. I’ve been reading a lot of Hayek for work and he, for instance, certainly advocated a safety net (I think also state funded but not state provided education too). Not all libertarians base their thinking in self-ownership/natural rights – there is a strong consequentialist streak as well.
Dan said,
July 21, 2009 at 11:38 am
Peter,
I just came across this Wenar paper which sums up quite well some of the lines of attack one can make on that Cohen argument – I wish I had discovered it before, it would have saved me some of the time I spent trying to formulate a response!
http://www.wenar.info/media/Wenar_Meanings_of_Freedom.pdf
Ste For Sure said,
July 21, 2009 at 4:05 pm
interesting post.
id imagine that libertopia will never happen because its precisely not what business elites want, and doesnt work in the interests of big capital.
There has always been in state capitalist societies massive state support and subsidy for the business class, socialisation of risk, privatisation of profit etc etc.
It has always been the case that capitalism requires a strong state to maintain its stability. laissez faire markets are just too risky.
Real libertarianism would be a nightmare for big corporations and the like, with no state safety net, no subsidies, no long term state investment in research and development etc. they would have to take all their own risks, and face their own costs.
So i dont think we should worry too much about the threat from REAL libertarianism. But, certainly, we should be worried by that rhetoric being used to justify the further fucking over of us normal folk.
Sunny H said,
July 22, 2009 at 3:29 am
Hi Paul – no I don’t buy it. Even a country like America which is much more libertarian than ours failed to get Ron Paul anywhere. It’s not going to happen here anytime soon – and the blogs are a very poor indicator of the general population’s preferences.
Furthermore, even if the libertarians were to become more prominent, they’d bleed support from the Tories not the left. So Red Toryism remains more of an electoral and intellectual threat.
Paul said,
July 22, 2009 at 9:08 am
Sunny,
You’re right that Red Toryism is more of an intellectual threat, and in the long term, an electoral threat. For sure, Libertarians will not make into government because their big ideas and policy prescriptions are unelectable.
But in the short term, it’s libertarian discourse which is seeping into the mainstream right, not red tory ideas. The more libertarian ideas weed their ways into Cameron’s inner circle, the further right the political consensus will shift. In terms of actual political outcomes in the short-medium term, I find that deeply worrying for the left because it will mean practical policy decisions which are ever more distant from what we would hope. Sure, it won’t be full-blown libertarianism…but it may well be a lot further to the right than it would be without libertarian ideas in the mix.
Red Tories may, by contrast, one day find themselves in government and they may get themselves there by undercutting the left. But how might they do this, exactly? Well, perhaps part of their appeal will be in offering a more human, compassionate face of conservatism, moving away from the harsh Libertarian-esque sorts of ideas which will lose traction as ordinary people suffer under such an approach to government. Red Tories might offer this human-faced, compassionate approach better than the left, and so gain power that way.
The point is, the rise of Libertarianism in the short term could (though this is of course speculation) facilitate the rise of Red Toryism in the long term.
It may turn out that part of the Red Tory threat needs to be understood in terms of what other sections of the right are getting up to, and how successful they end up being. Perhaps we shouldn’t be looking at this in an either/or dichotomy.
Duncan said,
July 23, 2009 at 12:53 pm
The world of libertarian blogs is a bizarre one, it’s essentially a group of privately educated, adult men calling each other cunts.
Tom N said,
July 23, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Interesting to see the two approaches juxtaposed as I’m sympathetic to elements in both approaches. Bu I must question the value of the pointless neologism ‘Red Tory’.
Scruton’s been writing in this territory for decades. So too Peter Hithchens. The emphasis on the importance of associations between the individual and the state isn’t new and certainly isn’t ‘red’. Anyone whose read Burke on ‘little platoons’ is familiar with it. It’s a pretty powerful current in Tocqueville too.
What might frighten you is that both strains might ally themselves in support of similar policies from very different starting premises – Localism being the most likely point of confluence.
Whilst the Conservative party has been in favour of free trade for a long time, its infiltration by economic arguments from writers not inherently suspicious of the corrupting power of the market, is a relatively recent phenomenon. It’s over stated how much of this New Right thinking influenced Thatcher. If she’d really been so in thrall to Nozic and Friedman I doubt she would have left the health and welfare budgets as she did.
Richard Murphy said,
July 24, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Paul is right: libertariansim is a threat
There’s no chance it can have electoral traction – but it drives the Daily Mail and Taxpayer’s Alliance and that’s poisonous enough
It is a cancer undermining society and we need to challenge it
As for Red Toryism – it’s a great personal marketing campaign – but of no substance at all – there have always been pinko tories – so Philip is another one. So what?
Richard
Grace said,
July 24, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Yes, libertarianism does seem to be scarily popular, esp. among boys, among all the ppe applicants at the boys’ school near me almost all of them are libertarians, VERY keen ones at that
they seem to have much better mechanisms at shaping the young/indoctrination than other political movements do, eg some boys i know just went on freedom week, 5days of libertarians seminars etc. never heard of anything similar for the centre-left
Tax Research UK » Is Red Toryism the Threat the Left Should be Focused On? « Bad Conscience said,
July 24, 2009 at 8:32 pm
[...] Is Red Toryism the Threat the Left Should be Focused On? « Bad Conscience. [...]
Is Red Toryism the Threat the Left Should be Focused On? « Bad Conscience | called2account said,
July 24, 2009 at 11:20 pm
[...] Is Red Toryism the Threat the Left Should be Focused On? « Bad Conscience. [...]
Peter said,
July 25, 2009 at 12:18 pm
It’s rather amusing reading about LPUK’s dismal result in Norwich North:
http://lpuk.blogspot.com/2009/07/lpuk-fail.html
http://lpuk.blogspot.com/2009/07/norwich-north-by-election.html
etc
Dave Semple said,
July 27, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Neither Red Toryism nor Libertarianism are any sort of threat. Libertarianism is a fringe idea at best: the call for a small state is incompatible with the needs placed by Capital upon the state. As Libertarianism exalts just that Capital, it does not have the werewithal to tear down the state: at best it allows for a populist demagoguery that can pull in people already on the edge of despair, especially if tied to religious fundamentalism – as it so often is, in the US. Some pretty good examples can be found in Chris Hedges’ book American Fascists.
This is why I never take anything from the Cato Institute or the Ludwig von Mises institute seriously: they can prattle all they like but so many of their state-hating followers are also science-hating lunatics. The blogosphere is a particular redoubt for such people, just as it is for would-be Nazis: the sort of angry diatribe common to both is attractive to children of a certain age in the United States.
As for Red Toryism, it will never be successful for similar reasons. First, it’s sheep’s clothing and doesn’t represent an actual sheep. The idea that the Tories could ever pull Left isses out from under the feet of the Left is ridiculous since most of Blond’s erstwhile party colleagues have nothing but loathing for his ideas. The recent announcements from Philip Hammon are a case in point. Blond espouses little that is Red: at best he’s aiming for Keynesianism, at worst for the same sort of sloppy rubbish that the Fabians have propagated for a century. There’s nothing new there and it only gets a look in at the moment because the intelligentsia are making their peace with the Tories – as can be seen from the tone of many pieces on Comment is Free.